This is from a September 2003 article : "Before this year, Edwards missed just seven votes out of 1,307 in his first four years in office, Briggs said. During his five years in the Senate, Edwards voted 1,551 times out of 1,626 roll-call votes, Briggs ... or 95.4 percent." For a Senator running for office
"It's not like Bush had some political reason to not send more troops if we needed them". With all the current concerns about a possible draft -- not that I'm predicting it'll happen, just saying that polling shows people care about it -- and the fact that there have been a number of reports that worldwide American forces are at the limit of what they can do; I would say there was an obvious politi
Whatever warbloggers may have been writing about, Bush absolutely focused on WMDs and the eminent threat to America in his comments and speeches. Warbloggers aren't accountable to the citizens of this country, Bush is. Warbloggers don't run the country, Bush does. It is certainly accurate to say that Americans supported the war because Bush told us we were facing an eminent threat from Iraqi WMDs. That's why people keep reading articles about it,
It doesn't bother you at all that Cheney lied -- something you hate in Kerry -- and instead you focus on Edwards? That sounds like bias, and a double standard. Edwards certainly has his flaws, but I haven't seen anyone contest that when Cheney was the boss of Halliburton, they violated American law to do busine
Generals Zinni and Shinseki warned Bush -- before the war -- that he was sending far too few troops.
drmiller, I would have interpreted COL Gene's comment to say that the point of everything election related -- including the VP debate -- is judging the president's policies. I don't think he was saying that you were off the discussion topic.
drmiller, you often go off-topic in your comments. I've repeatedly seen you respond to someone's points not by disproving them, but by making unrelated new assertions. I don't think there's anything wrong with that -- I always enjoy reading your comments -- but you should respect COL Gene's right to do the same.
Cheney's best quip of the night turns out not to be true . Cheney came off as smart and capable -- which means that I find it easier to believe he was dishonest than to believe he genuinely forgot meeting Edwards... three times.
Too bad Cheney's best line was a lie .
While I agree about the importance of respecting copyright law, I see no obvious reason to say that posting linked article excerpts is a less valid form of blogging than writing original entries. A number of the most popular blogs on the Web are basically link blogs. The Drudge Report -- yes, I'm aware that's not a blog -- shows there's a huge demand for collections of interesting links. It's not clear to
Cheney's best line of the night was that he had never met Edwards before the debate. Unfortunately for Cheney, it was easy for the Blogosphere to prove this assertion wasn't true. Already, the most popular interesting debate story at yahoo -- that is, story that isn't a generic roundup -- is about the <a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor
I thought Cheney did fine in the debate, and his daughter -- Mary Cheney -- must be used to taking the backseat to her father.
GX: that's hilarious. Mrs. blogic constantly makes John Edward / Edwards jokes, due to too much daytime television watching during a vacation in 2002.
For those who have some sense of humor about these things: Cheney suggested that people go to FactCheck.com . Oops. That said, it was an honest mistake, and he did fine in the debate.
For those who follow these things, The online futures markets have raised the likelihood of a Kerry victory -- during the last hour -- at both NewsFutures and TradeSports .
It's been said that if you want to get an accurate assessment of how people score a political debate, you have to turn off the sound on the TV. Frankly, I hope this isn't true, and I've repeatedly said tonight that I thought both Edwards and Cheney performed well. That said, if I had been watching with the television set on mute, I'd probably have favored Edwards.
I assume both Free Republican and Democratic Underground are trying to influence the poll results. That said, I'm sure the number of poll voters is much greater than the current visitors of those two web sites, and -- as has been noted before -- Free Republic has many more members than Democratic Unde
It appears that most people who watched the debate thought Edward won. To be honest, that surprises me. I would have called it a draw. I do think Edwards body language was probably a little better, but Cheney came off as smart and knowledgeable.
I would call it a tie. As I've indicated in other discussions, both were so on message that the debate was boring. Cheney had no Bush-like meltdown. I will predict that this will not change the basic momentum of the race; which means that we're stuck wating until Friday to see any new developments.
I agree with COL Gene: I would call this a draw, and honestly, I can't see how this could be seen as a decisive Cheney victory. As an overall feeling: I think this debate was fundamentally less interesting than the first presidential one. Everything tonight was by the numbers, and both candidates were way too on message. No surprises here.
I think Cheney and Edwards both did fine. Certainly, Cheney did not exhibit the same meltdown we remember from Bush last week. From the perspective of the overall election, my guess is that the Kerry campaign people have to be happy -- nothing that happened tonight will kill the momentum from last week's debate. Tomorrow, we'll hear that there were no knock out pun
Obviously, we're all politically biased. I would say that both candidates are doing fine. Dick Cheney is no George Bush. Edwards is doing much better than he did at points during the Democratic Primary. My guess is that this debate will be a wash: the current momentum will continue until the Second Presidential Debate, this Friday.
Sandy2, I think I half agree with you. Since the US depends on oil, and more significantly protects European and Japanese access to oil (they import a much large percentage of their oil than we do), it makes sense to keep using using mideast oil as long as it's the cheapest in the world. Basic economics means that if we avoid using that oil and instead develop American oil sources (which are much more expensive per gallon) or buy more expensive oil f
JoeUser Forums